WSIS+20 Review Outcomes and the Path to Implementation – MT 01 2026

I understand I missed a very good party last night, so that’s always a good sign, because it’s a good sign of socializing and networking, which is also part of such events. But that means also some people are probably going to be trickling in as we go through the morning, and that’s okay, too, because those who are here are going to benefit from the discussion anyway. So too bad for those who aren’t. So a very good morning to you, and welcome to day two of Eurodig. You will, this morning and throughout the day, be taking part into various sessions that are articulated around main topics. And just on a practical note, We have workshops, as you know, running in parallel to the sessions.

The workshops start about half an hour into the main topic sessions. So if you want to leave halfway through the main topic because you want to go to one of the workshops, can you please sit closer to the back so that you can discreetly escape? And that applies to all four main topic sessions throughout the day. So thanks for that. You had the opportunity to register ahead of the event so that you could take part into the dialogue and share your views, your experience, maybe your questions. So you are registered and we will, whether you’re online or in the room, give you the floor when the time comes and we will call you by name.

that hopefully suits you. You’ll know there’s going to be a list on the screen behind us so you know when your turn comes so you’re not put in the spotlight unexpectedly. You’ll know when to expect to be given the floor. I’ll have the privilege of moderating main topic one dedicated to the WSIS Plus 20 review outcomes together with my fellow moderator, Sophia Longway. Good morning, Sophia.

Good morning. It’s very nice that I can co -moderate the session review on WSIS Plus 20.

Lovely and delighted to have you. So before we open, no, actually, I think I’ve told you everything I had to tell you in terms of practical organization. So let’s kick off our event for this morning. And I’d like to invite our key participants to join us on stage. So please welcome Teresa Swinehart. Senior Vice President. President of Global Domains and Strategy at ICANN, and you already know her. She joined us yesterday. Joining us as well this morning, we have Alena Murawska She’s Senior Public Policy and Internet Governance Advisor at RIPE NCC, that’s the Network Coordination Center of European IP Networks. Welcome back to Thibaut Kleiner, Director of Future Networks at DG Connect at the European Commission.

We’re also welcoming Maarit Palovirta Deputy Director General for Connect Europe. And joining us online this morning is Guilherme Canela. He’s Director for Digital Policy Inclusion and Transformation at UNESCO. Good morning, Guilherme.

Good morning.

I understand you’re here anyway. Good morning. Yes, we hear you. Thank you for joining us. So welcome to UNESCO. Thank you all. And… This session, as we mentioned briefly already, will give you all in the room, online, but of course also on stage, the opportunity to discuss the outcomes of the review of WISIS Plus 20. And we’ll also look at how the process is conducted. We’ll look at it from various angles. WISIS Plus 20 with broader UN processes, such as the GDC, for instance, the Global Digital Compact. So I’d like to turn to you first, Guilherme. I’m sure you’re going to appear on screen, either behind us or in front of us. And I’ll turn to you to maybe give us more of a general context.

The WISIS Plus 20 resolution highlights the need for stronger coherence between the WISIS. framework on the one hand and broader digital, UN digital processes, in particular the GDC and the Pact for the Future. So how can the implementation of these be organized just to make sure that we reinforce processes and processes also reinforce one another rather than, in fact, create duplication because that’s what we want to avoid. And maybe if you can tell us what practical steps are needed to ensure a coordinated delivery.

Thank you very much. Pleasure to be with you. I’m really sorry I couldn’t join you on site as was my initial plan, but today is the graduation of one of my children. So first thing first, I need to stay in Paris for this very important moment. So thank you so much. Again, thank you for… the Eurodig organizers, a very important topic this year. And also congratulations to Eurid .eu for the 20 years anniversary, just an important milestone that also reunites all of us. And I want to also extend a special thanks to our partners in crime in the UN system in terms of the implementation of the WSIS, especially our colleagues from ITU, UNCTAD, UNDP that might be in the room, UNESCO co -leads with ITU several action lines, but this is a joint work of the entire UN system and all the most stakeholder partners that have been throughout these 20 years implementing WSIS.

So let me, it’s a very important question, let me offer five key drivers for the conversation. I’m going to start with the first one, and then I’m going to move on to the next one. And the first one, we need to understand that WISIS in the last 20 years, to maybe use Douglas North’s terminology, created a path dependence in this overall conversation on how we organize the digital and the Internet information ecosystem. From the perspective of the multilateral environment, from the intergovernmental organizations dealing with this, but WISIS for the first time in the history of the multilateral system actually introduced the idea of multistakeholderism. So both in Geneva 2003 and Tunis 2005, for the first time actually, the processes were beyond God.

All the other relevant stakeholders participated on that. So I think the first important remark to be made is that WISIS is a very important tool. actually set a very important bar, because although processes like the GDC were discussed mainly from an intergovernmental perspective, if you read the GDC, also every time is emphasizing the importance of keeping the most stakeholder elements there, and this is an important legacy of the WISIS process. But if we can, grosso modo, summarize, the GDC, for example, since it’s a discussion and an agreement and a negotiation among member states in terms of high -level principles and goals, GDC is telling us the what and the why, while WISIS is a platform of implementation, so it’s telling us the how and with whom we should do that.

So, you see, this is the first point, it’s a complementarity in the way it’s implemented. Of course, it’s easy to say, not that easy to do, but if we keep this kind of complementarity, we avoid the overlappings, unnecessary overlappings that you mentioned. Second point. I want to insist in this idea of intergovernmental legitimacy that was the central issue of the Pact for the Future, the GDC, but we can also look into the SDGs. All those processes were negotiated among governments, but it’s absolutely essential to keep the most stakeholder platform logic of WISIS. And in that sense, it’s not a contradiction, it’s a complementarity of these processes, and this will be very important to actually achieve the goals of all these processes, not only the GDC, the Pact of the Future, but also the SDGs, particularly on when technology, etc., are the cross -cutting element for the achievement of all the sustainable development goals.

Third point, it’s essential to have a monitoring environment. And accountability system for all these processes, and again, the WISIS offered this framework for… for these broader systems, but particularly in terms of the DGC, the WISIS forum, the WISIS stock -taking database, the different action line reporting mechanisms, they will help the rest of the UN system to understand how the global digital compact is actually being implemented or not. So then we can correct eventual processes, et cetera, to, at the end of the day, achieve this element. First point, and I’m almost concluding, it’s important to see that the WISIS from the outset was not a technology -specific framework. It’s rather a technology -neutral framework, and it’s important it keeps like that.

And in this sense, the DGC, for example, has a complementarity because the DGC entered in very specific issues, for example, artificial intelligence or data governments and platform accountability. So again, you… You can see the complementarity. The WSIS action lines are policy -oriented elements, while the DGC is entering into specific issues. And finally, both processes, and broader in the SDGs and the Pact for the Future, are about different components of the global cooperation in these areas. Again, the WSIS is looking into very specific elements under the action lines in regional, national, and global implementation, while the DGC is offering a broader perspective to the UN Secretariat and the different agencies and other partners to go on that.

So I will stop here, but the main message is this. If we really invest on the complementarity, it is there, and we need to always pay attention to avoid unnecessary overlappings, and it’s totally possible it was built like that.

Thank you very much. So picking up on Guilherme’s point, Thibault, on the same theme, linking WSIS Plus 20 and other UN processes, if we look at all the existing digital governance processes that are already in place, how can stakeholders really ensure that WSIS Plus 20 implementation is not diluted or not duplicated, as we just talked about, and that instead of that, it benefits from all the coordination that’s possible?

So good morning. And I think it’s a real challenge today, because if you look back 20 years ago, probably the main show in town, was about Internet, because that was the edge of the technology. Today, I think if you ask people, they will probably more mention AI. They will mention cybersecurity, they will mention data, and then they will mention internet. So the problem we have is that in the past years we’ve seen actually a multiplication of processes in parallel. And from the European Union it’s not something we think is useful because it’s dispersing our efforts, it’s dispersing our resources. And also it risks undermining the very purpose of this multistakeholder process, which is that you try to have one conversation with a multiplicity of participants so that you bring consensus and you integrate the views of all into the policymaking.

The good thing is that because WISIS was designed a long time ago, it actually provides the institutional structures to actually consolidate these efforts. And I think when we were negotiating, when we were negotiating the WISIS Plus 20, that was a message from Europe. We said, let’s try to mainstream, let’s try to use the structures that exist, you know, the co -facilitators, the fact that you report on progress and so on. And if you look at the action lines of WISIS, frankly, they are very good. They are covering the ground. They are covering as well, you know, inclusion, connectivity, they are integrating skills and so on. So they are providing really a very practical way to implement, as was just explained.

So the challenge we have, I think, is more to try and convince various participants that instead of reinventing their own forum, they should try to join up and use what is already on the table. But it’s not an easy effort. I mean, if you look at the number of conferences, expert groups that were created, it has been a proliferation. And at the end of the day, I think it’s also a matter for the UN. You know, we were hoping already at the time of the Global Digital Compact that this was… going to be a way to optimize the roles and responsibilities within the UN family. I’m not sure we are there yet. So I think that WISIS could be actually an opportunity to do that, to make sure that we really are serious about specializing certain agencies for certain tasks, that we are serious about, indeed, bringing this one conversation, thanks to now a fully established IGF, you know, with a role, with a director.

It’s also a place where the multi -stakeholder could voice, really, their priorities. So in a way, I think that we have a great opportunity today to make it work as it should and stop reinventing new formats, new processes, and rather consolidate, because at the end of the day, also, it’s a matter of resources. And if we want this process to work… We need to put oil in the machine. We need to go to the right places together because otherwise the conversation will be stolen by the few that have the most resources. And I think that’s the very risk for YCs right now. A nice statement, outcome statement, nice words, but as one says, you know, talk is cheap.

What really matters is how we are going to implement these great opportunities.

So a bit of streamlining necessary. Sophia, I’m going to hand over to you because we have a number of participants who have registered for specific interventions.

Yes, indeed. And we grouped interventions into the three blocks that we’re going to discuss. So the first one is really, as you already said, linking with this to the broader UN context and to the Global Digital Compact. And the first person who would like to intervene is Kumhur Er, from the Brussels municipality. You’re supposed to be on site. Maybe you can raise your hand and speak up. Are you in the room? okay no okay then the next person is ranjan tumicina from world vision also supposed to be on site are you in the room okay no doesn’t look like it then the next person is supposed to be online pari espandiari from the global techno politics forum and i can a la i like are you online no okay this is going to be a very quick exercise but we’re saving some time here then the next person is also supposed to be in the room Jaroslaw Ponder head of itu office for europe

yes i’m in the room surprisingly okay well i’m committed to the wises since more than 20 years and was in the tunis when it was agreed so for me it’s very personal as well experienced And thank you very much for all speakers for conveying those messages which you conveyed. We could not agree more with this what you just transmitted to the audience. Of course, for us, it’s not only about the digital, but it’s about engagement. And I think that when we are sitting in the preparatory meetings 25 years ago for the WSIS process, those who exercise the multi -stakeholderism would not recognize this what is happening here and in the also review processes where heated discussions about the role of the voice of the civil society, private sector, were really challenged.

These days, we have these conversations happening. Because of the one thing as well, that we understood that the digital development, digital governance has to be done in the partnership. And without this partnership, we cannot really roll out. We cannot give the guidance. We cannot co -create and go in the direction where we would like to go. Of course, 20 years ago, we were advocating very much for understanding why digital matters to different areas, health, education. This was not really understood by the health minister, why he should talk about the Internet, why he should really be at the table for the investments on the broadband infrastructure. These days, it’s very different. Everybody understands. And this is the reason why the WISIS plus 20 outcomes are so significant for us, not only giving the structure for the UN to act as the one UN.

And this brings us also to the other. This is the other process which is currently going on, UNAT, where we are really seeking for the efficiencies within the UN system to deliver on this what is requested, what is designed by the member states and the other stakeholders with the clear expectations what we would like to do. So that’s why we are looking forward to discussing the WSIS Action Lines, roadmaps at the upcoming WSIS Forum. We hope to see many of you in July in Geneva.

I’m sorry, your two minutes are up, so we’ll be very strict, right?

Just now. So we hope to be with you there. And let me stop here.

Thank you very much for your intervention. And I’d use important work on the WSIS framework. The next intervention will be by Craig Stanley Adamson from the UK government, who is also on site. You have the floor.

Thank you very much. And also thank you to both the European Commission and EURID, as well as congratulations on your 20th anniversary and for hosting this event. Yeah, just to cover on this, first of all, to say that WSIS Plus 20 was a huge success and delivered real, meaningful, and forward -looking progress on a number of key issues. And multi -stakeholder cooperation was central to that. And, of course, now we’re recognising that the work does not stop here. WSIS has faced a couple more big global moments that require us to work together to ensure successful and sustained implementation. Now, we’ve heard a little bit about the GDC, which will be reviewed over the next couple of years.

It will be another critical moment for us all to ensure that WSIS information is defended, that we do not duplicate and not even take backward steps. But another big moment to recognise over this year is that critical Internet governance discussions will take place at the ITU plenipotentiary in November. And this will bring an opportunity to update four Internet governance resolutions and also one on the ITU’s role in WSIS and the SDGs, which will be reviewed in 2030. These ITU resolutions are often contentious and geopolitical issues often play a central role. But there is an opportunity to align its work closely. Clearly, with the outcomes of WSIS Plus 20, particularly around connectivity, digital divides, and especially strengthening that multi -stakeholderism that was secured again through WSIS Plus 20.

the UK is going to be proud that we will be bringing a multi -state called delegation made up of experts across multiple fields to try to deliver that success at the ITU as well and I just want to say that I do encourage governments in the room to consider doing the same and for stakeholders also in the room to help play a key part in this moment finally I do want to touch upon what Tebow said about the permanent status of the UNIGF and this is a really important moment and also be a part of that the greater recognition of its national and regional initiatives such as Eurodig here today as another important step forward in WSIS implementation and that’s also quite crucial there is now an expectation from the WSIS plus 20 outcome document that forums such as the ITU the GDC processes such as that should take the IGF and its NRIs work into account going forwards so the UK will be championing that across the board and we hope that many of you will help do the same thank you.

Thank you very much. Thank you very much for your intervention also. for having a multistakeholder delegation and bringing them into multilateral spaces. That’s really great. And also linking up to what the former speaker said. The next person who will take the floor is Ana Neves, who is also on site from the Portuguese government. You have the floor. And please stick to the two minutes.

Good morning. Well, I will be very short. I would like to raise my voice here only to say that all these processes are bringing a lot of confusion among governments. And some governments, they are not participating in all these fora because they don’t understand. And when I’m talking about government, I’m talking about the government itself. So the ones that are elected every four years in Western countries, at least. And so it’s very difficult for them to understand. So it takes like two years for them to understand what the consequences are. What the Council is doing, etc., etc. So I mean the European Union Council. So it’s very difficult, all these processes. And it’s up to us to stop and to make things more.

understandable and feasible and otherwise we are not we are only wasting our resources both financing financial and human resources thank you very much

thank you very much for your brief intervention uh the next person is also supposed to be on side um Elonnai Hickok are you in

the room uh yeah hello so my name is Elonnai Hickok i’m from the global network initiative um and i wanted to pick up on what the panelists were saying around the importance of streamlining the the different processes and we agree with that and i think the upcoming wisis this july is a really important moment to figure out how to do that you’re also going to have the un global dialogue which was developed through the global digital compact taking place that week um in geneva in july and um we are putting forward recommendations on how to enable cross -pollination between WSIS Forum and the UN Global Dialogue to, for example, have the findings from the scientific panel presented at WSIS and findings from WSIS presented at the UN Global Dialogue.

The UN Global Dialogue could leverage the multi -stakeholder community, the grassroots community that WSIS is very unique in bringing together. So we really think there are a lot of opportunities for cross -pollination. I think that streamlining also can come through in an emphasis on very specific topics that these forums are focused on and are really well placed to make progress on, and that includes human rights, connectivity, capacity building, and development. We would also encourage them to lean into their ability to be inclusive. Other processes that you see around it. Such as AI summits, et cetera. have are really showing the stark geopolitical fragmentation that we exist in right now. And I think things like WSIS and UNGD have an opportunity to be inclusive and with an emphasis on global majority countries.

And just lastly, I would say that the WSIS Plus 20 process was a very strong moment for civil society coordination. And part of that was the open and inclusive processes that were implemented. And so I would encourage that those be documented and replicated across other consultation processes that these

Thank you very much for your intervention. The next person is also supposed to be in the room, Nadia Simeon. You have the floor. Oh, OK. Then we’ll move on to the next question.

Thank you. So thank you for your contributions and be prepared for the next ones. We’ll now slightly shift the angle of discussion and we’ll look at how we can operationalize the WSIS plus 20 outcomes. And I’ll turn to you, Alina, for this one, because from a more general point of view, maybe if you look at the next two or three years, which of the WSIS outcomes require the most urgent attention in your view? And how can stakeholders really translate these outcomes into commitments that are leading to measurable implementation roadmaps, something very concrete with a meaningful accountability to support them?

Yes. Yes? Okay. Colleagues here in the room and colleagues online, I’m Alena Murawska, representing the RIPEN-CC, the technical organization, technical community. And we’ve been a proud institutional partner of EURODIG since its inception. I’m very happy to be a part of this important discussion. So, and I will definitely repeat some points that have already been mentioned, but that also means that we are also aligned in this room on what we need to do in the coming years. So, this is plus 20, offered us all an opportunity to reflect on how shared commitments can be translated into practice. While it’s important to preserve a global interoperable Internet that… And as we know, Andrew and Pince, they’re… digital development worldwide.

From the RIPENCC perspective, the This Is Plus 20 outcome sends three very positive messages. So they reaffirm that multi-stakeholder cooperation mentioned here in this room many times must remain central to Internet governance. They also recognize importance of preventing Internet fragmentation. And equally important, This Is Plus 20 outcomes move the discussion from vision to delivery, including the roadmaps that link this action lines, the sustainable development goals, and global digital compact, also mentioned by my esteemed co-speakers today. So building on these principles, we believe that the next two or three years, stakeholders need to address digital divides through coordinated investment, capacity building, and evidence-based policymaking. At the same time, ensure a stronger international cooperation that will prevent Internet fragmentation and preserve global digital compact.

globally connected Internet. And we know that this is becoming increasingly challenging in the current geopolitical context. That’s why this renewed commitment at the UN level, we believe it’s paramount. And now I’m moving to my main point, that implementation will only be credible if it recognizes a fundamental… reality that digital transformation depends on the Internet’s technical foundation, because without resilient networks and skilled people, the digital transformation and digital policy risk remaining aspirational rather than becoming practical realities. And this is where a technical community has a clear responsibility. And we, as one of the five regional Internet registries, we do not implement sustainable development goals directly, but we do help sustain the Internet Commons that make digital innovation, public services, education, trade, and social inclusion possible.

So our role is to support the technical coordination that keeps the Internet scalable, secure, and resilient. Credible implementation also means building an existing delivery architecture and not around it. It was also mentioned by other speakers today in this room. And that includes also Internet governance forums as IGFs and EURODIG rather than creating parallel structures. Finally, delivery must be supported by measurable outcomes rather than broad or purely aspirational indicators. We see that vision and ambition, it’s not lacking. But from our experiences interacting with different governments across our service region, we see that what is missing sometimes is the operational support. Which is needed to turn commitments into practice. And that includes data -driven insights on connectivity, technical skills development, and access to best practices and knowledge sharing.

This is why the RIPENC’s new five -year strategy focuses on strengthening our position as resilient and trusted regional Internet registry and responsible steward on Internet governance. It also means that we will be continuing our work on capacity building and on the development of new technologies. And Internet measurements. We also emphasize our enhanced support for the open Internet standards and strengthen the scalability and security of the Internet and these standards such as IPv6 and RPKI, and we’re also working on that at the European Commission in the Multi -Stakeholder Forum, as well as the engagement with governments and regulators, which is directly relevant to the implementation of this Plus 20 outcomes. So, if I may conclude, the delivery of this Plus 20 should focus on practical coordination rather than adding layers of digital governance processes.

This is that GDC, the Pact for the Future, should be aligned around concrete national and community needs to support the development of the resilient Internet infrastructure through investment in digital skills and through open policy process and genuine participation. A credible process. A credible process will depend on whether these priorities are translated into operational capacity, measurable progress, and long -term cooperation across stakeholder communities. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Alena Maarit, same question to you. From your point of view, which are the most critical outcomes of the WSIS plus 20 review that require immediate action and and what should stakeholders prioritize? Thank you

very much and good morning, everybody. So my name is Maarit Palovirta and I’m the deputy director general at Connect Europe. And Connect Europe is a trade association based here in Brussels, representing the European leading European telecom operators. You might be asking, well, what do why are telecommunication operators interested in the Internet governance? And first of all, so many of our members, actually a good handful of them have a global footprint. So they’re also present in Africa, Asia, Latin America, et cetera. And secondly, of course, and this is very fundamental. The Internet that connects us all today. I mean. And as Thibault was saying, I mean, the issue is a bit retro because we’ve been discussing this for the last 20 years.

But it is still very critical that, of course, the technical foundations, we have interoperability globally so that our members and other operators and service providers can then provide their services in this global sphere. And while we fully agree, of course, that the global governance was amongst the critical outcomes of this process, the WSIS this time around, and of course, the IGF as well, I’d like to hear talk a little bit about connectivity, as this is, of course, our bread and butter in a way. And also, we’re very glad to see that connectivity now has quite a prominent place in the WSIS plus 20 outcomes. And so, thank you so much for joining us today. And the way the outcomes are addressing it, I think by and large, we’re quite pleased with that.

So on one hand, there is the mention of the goal of having universal connectivity, meaningful connectivity. And this is very much addressing, I think, the supply side of things. So making sure that we are covering all areas of the globe and of Europe as well. We still have some coverage gaps in Europe as well. And the second side of things is then more the demand side. So we’re very happy to see that things such as the content and services, devices, skills are also listed there. So we’re looking at connectivity really as a kind of ecosystem rather than just building networks, which was maybe a little bit the traditional way of looking at this. And here the crucial question is then, well, how do we, after 20 years of having discussed connectivity and global Internet, so how do we operationalize this?

How do we actually then? Make it happen at the end of the day? And as we are here in Brussels, I wanted to share a little bit about the European context. And in Europe, so we have captured this connectivity ecosystem in what we call the digital decade targets, which is effectively a framework that puts together the different metrics, looking at the supply side factors, but also the demand side factors. So skills, SME uptake of services, public administration, e -governance, things, et cetera, et cetera. And from our side, this kind of approach or roadmap, and I think the roadmap idea was also mentioned in the WSIS plus 20 outcomes, can be very helpful in setting a common vision for all stakeholders and also some clear goals.

And in Europe, the goals are aspirational, not binding. And we believe that this is, of course, also the good way forward, as we should be facilitating the process rather than mandating. And I think that’s a very important part of the process. And if we then look at a little bit on the outcomes and how they describe the different factors that could help us take the connectivity agenda forward, we very much agree that policy and regulation and the way it is used is crucial. There is quite a lot of context as well on different financing options, be it public or private. And again, we, of course, need that in a very kind of high -cost industry where it takes a lot of resources to build these expensive networks.

What is crucial from our side and also from our experience is that we need to also then keep the right balance between the market forces that are already there with the demand and supply. And then… And then on the other hand, the government intervention. So excessive regulation doesn’t necessarily attract private investments and capital markets attention. So we need to make sure that we get it right. Another practical consideration would be that… connectivity conditions are, of course, still inherently local. So we are now here talking about a global process, global roadmap. So how do we marry together the global vision and then very practical local actions? And we believe that, again, there needs to be a bit of a balanced approach.

So perhaps we have a vision and a high level roadmap at the global level. But then the details really need to be fleshed out in each region or each country to make sure that we are addressing the specific gaps that we may have in coverage and connectivity. So maybe I’ll just leave it there. Thanks.

Thank you. And the devil’s in the detail, as we all know. So that’s where you have to focus. Thibaut, let’s build on the WSIS Plus 20 mandate for action lines to elaborate targeted implementation roadmaps. That we were talking about. How can WSIS Plus 20 commitments be made operational there again and in a measurable and accountable manner?

I think that’s really what we should indeed deliver very soon. I think that the meeting of July, as was just mentioned, of the WISIS community will be a first step. I think we need to first look at what is available. So you have already UNGIS, so in the UN system around WISIS, several entities that could already help in the mapping activities. I mean, following the Global Digital Compact, there is a very useful also list of tasks that was designed as a result. So I think that the first is probably this mapping exercise where we need to know very clearly what actually has been committed to. And the second element is who can deliver in that process.

And that’s where I think indeed, you know, the conversation is going to be very important. And the positions in July will be a starting point so that we can also identify what is in the making. the plenipot of the ITU I think is also a good moment to also clarify maybe some roles and responsibilities and generally speaking there will be also a new secretary general in the UN. My hope is that this is this kind of issues will be part also of the campaigning will be part also of the design of the UN because due to certain donors also I think that the UN has a bit of a funding issue and therefore it is in its best interest to very clearly you know establish you know what will be the structure in place.

So in concrete terms apart from I would say this organization and structural elements I think that we should look at the action lines as a very practical way to you know have our to -do list and also trust the co -facilitators to organize sufficient discussion so that they also sense you know the prioritization that goes with it because certainly when you have a very long list you cannot do everything at once you need to start from somewhere. and this is also where we think that from the EU we can contribute because we have been very active in legislation in the past years. We are very active these days in terms of capacity building, technological sovereignty.

We think that these are elements both on regulation and on capacity building where we can contribute and help really on this prioritization exercise. Thank you.

So, Sophia, back to you for room contributions.

Yes ,back to the audience contributions. We have a couple online. First is Arogyna Netshumulatu from Bahia Dar University. Are you with us? No. Okay. Then Kosi Amesinu from ONG Women Be Free. Are you with us in the room? No. Okay. Then another one online, Lugman Ahmad Khan from the Center for Alternative Perspective. Are you online? no well this is quick then we have on site actually Mikita Danilo who is a software tester are you in the room with us no then we have Frederica from the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions you’re also supposed to be on site are you here then you have the floor for two minutes

can you press the mic just you need to switch on the mic

I think now it’s working maybe I can take a minute considering the four other people are not here but so no sorry all right yeah I’ll keep it to two minutes thank you everyone so I’m Frederica from the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions first of all we welcome the recognition of public access facility including libraries, as critical infrastructure for connectivity with SIS Plus 20. However, we also recognize that connection alone is not enough. It is crucial that outcomes call for policies and investment that build skills, confidence, and access to relevant content so that connectivity translates into positive change into people’s life. So over the next two to three years, priority should be given to strengthening, enabling policy environments, and sustaining investment in public access facilities.

Also, as colleagues on the panel mentioned, implementation cannot rely on top -down approaches alone. They should be locally grounded, inclusive, and responsive to community needs. Actors working close to communities, therefore, play a very important role here. Consultation and partnerships with such actors can help ensure that SIS Plus 20 commitments are implemented in a way that reflects real -world conditions. However, this also requires being able to measure progress in a meaningful way. Libraries, as part of the digital public infrastructure, offer an existing structure to support implementation. They can also help measure progress through practical indicators showing which share of the population accesses the internet through public access points, who participates in digital skills programs, and also showing how people actually use information and knowledge in their daily lives.

So library networks and associations can contribute to the monitoring and implementation of WSIS action lines in a more locally grounded and context sensitive way, given their proximity to and also trust within communities. So IFLA and our global network of library associations institutions are ready to work and to enable such collaborations. Thank you.

Thank you very much for your commitment and your intervention. I think we have some time for maybe two more contributions from the room. So if anyone has something to say on the operationalization of the WSIS post -20 outcome, raise your hand and feel free. Chris, then over to you, you have two minutes

Thank you very much Chris Buckridge, former MAG member and quite involved in the WSIS Plus 20 I’m not sure if this quite, well hopefully this fits in the operationalisation of the WSIS outcomes but I think a really important point for us here, specifically at Eurodig and noting what Craig mentioned about the emphasis that was placed on IGF and NRIs in relation to WSIS and the importance of taking note of those events and their communities we need to really understand that it falls to us to also respond to that and think about what the outcomes of an event like Eurodig of the IGF, of NRIs look like, like how are we making sure that those outcomes are clear and can be acted upon and can be taken account of, so this is not something we can push to other people, it’s absolutely within the WSIS space something that we, in this room and in this community need to be taking on board as to what does this mean for us and our role in this whole process.

Thank you very much. Wolfgang, you have the floor for two minutes.

Thank you very much. Some people mentioned the WSIS forum in July, but at the same time, we have also the first global dialogue on AI governance in the Palekto building. And I hope that we will have not separated discussions for AI and for WSIS follow -up, but this is united. Because if I remember, 25 years ago, there was confusion what Internet governance is. And the Working Group on Internet Governance got the mandate to define Internet governance. And we have a definition which was reiterated in the WSIS Plus 20 negotiations a couple of months ago. But today, we have a similar confusion what AI governance is. Nobody knows exactly what AI governance is. This is not directly Internet governance, but AI governance is.

is a child of Internet governance. And so there is no need to reinvent the wheel. So we should look for a close cooperation between the Internet community and the AI community. And the best thing, and this is a concrete proposal, would be if the MAC of the IGF nominates a liaison to the independent panel on AI and the Internet panel on AI nominates a liaison to the MAC of the IGF so that you can create conditions for a greater coherence between the two processes. Otherwise, we would have a situation which also was envisaged by Thibault that it would be very risky that we see a fragmentation of the discussion landscape which would be a waste of resources.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much for your intervention and directly a very concrete idea. We’re also now moving from… Oh, we have another. Hear me, I’ll spot the floor. Ben? Over to you, Jeremy. You asked for the floor.

Yes, no, very briefly on the operational side, to just slightly disagree with Thibault in one thing, is that I don’t think we should speak about what’s going to happen in July is kicking off the process, right? We, as the UN system and all the other stakeholders, we have been implementing the action lines for the last 20 years. So it’s how we keep doing that vis -a -vis the new challenges. But just to give you a concrete example on the action line in terms of capacity building and digital transformation, only UNESCO, in a joint agreement with Oxford University, since their wisdom was approved in December in New York, we have trained more than 30 ,000 civil servants on digital transformation and new challenges.

So I do think that, and Thibault mentioned that, that is about taking stock and… defining the issue, but I don’t think we are starting a new process. We need to be sure that all our field offices all over the world are committed to the implementation of the different action lines and distributing to the work in the entire UN system. So we are dealing with that, but my colleagues in FAO are dealing with technology and agriculture and so on and so forth and multilingualism that I know we are going to discuss today as well. So just to make this precision, because I think it’s very important to not miss this perspective that a lot is already

Thank you very much. I think now we’re moving over from operationalization to implementation. Thank you, Sophia. So I’d like to now open yet another angle in our discussion. I’d like to focus on implementing WSIS Plus 20 through the multi -stakeholder model and the IGF. And Teresa? I’m going to turn to you for this one, because how do you think the multi -stakeholder model in particular the IGF ecosystem, how do you think they should be involved to really ensure that the implementation outcomes remain inclusive and that at the same time it delivers tangible results? Because that’s what we’ve been talking about, the concrete outcomes.

Let’s see. This one works? Yes. Fabulous. First of all, it’s fantastic to be here and to see the work of so many years of everybody that’s culminated in actually having this conversation at this level and looking at the integration of various things. We heard various words and various points, the collaboration, the coordination, maybe a sort of analysis, walking the talk. We actually need to move some things forward and be quite practical about it. And if we look at things over the past 20 years, the Internet’s completely evolved, and as Wolfgang had highlighted, you know, there’s discussions around different issues, but they touch on the Internet overall. The network of networks connects things, and now there’s just other mediums that are connecting into that.

And you can call it AI, you can call it whatever you want, but they are connecting together. And the reason I want to raise that is that we cannot look at things in silos, and there is no part of society that doesn’t touch the digital environment, whether it’s health care or education. And so we need to be cognizant of that as we move forward in these dialogues to really be quite practical around it. We’ve already highlighted that the outcome of the negotiations last fall achieved a really strong document. There were. the use of terminology in there that 20 years ago we probably would not have anticipated, whether it’s technical community, whether it’s multi -stakeholder model, whether it’s the realization of a seamless Internet being fundamental to global connectivity and the use of the digital society now online to the extent it has been.

We also had an outcome document that has an IGF now that’s permanent, and that’s significant. In the early conversations, it wasn’t clear whether an IGF concept would even work and whether that would even evolve. And as we saw over the years, the topics at the IGF shifted. They shifted from understanding what IP addressing space is and domain names to data protection issues to cybersecurity issues to digital inclusion to capacity building. So the wide range and the scope of topics, is one that has transcended the Internet space, if you want to call it Internet space or Internet governance, whatever it might be, but this digital society. So the IGF itself now, it needs to be pragmatic.

It needs to be strengthened. We need a secretariat that can do the job. We need a secretariat and the resources and the ability for that to help take what the national and regional IGFs and dialogues are happening, be able to culminate that, but not be the sole source of that, but also help disseminate the conversations at a global IGF in a way that’s practical, that can help inform those discussions. We had conversations at the beginning. Let’s not duplicate and create more dialogues. Our time is valuable. All of your time is valuable. Let’s be pragmatic about what we want to achieve with each of the events and how we can use the IGF to help reinforce that and reinstate that.

and so there’s a couple areas around that that from a practical standpoint aside from having the the ability just to be practical uh from a a support mechanism of a secretariat and the operationalizing of some of the work that does need to occur and coming from an organization where we do that that’s not insignificant one actually does need to resource that in the right way to facilitate and to help support uh the different kinds of dialogues but it also needs to be more inclusive uh it has to ensure that we are looking at and engaging uh through the igf what we heard from governments uh during the wiss’s negotiations and the importance of governmental issues of the private sector and business there’s probably no business that doesn’t touch upon the digital environment in some way but are they part of some of those conversations and sharing with other forests what some of their challenges are that they need to survive they have a customer base that customer base is also being represented of course at the igf It also has to be clear about those issues that are not being addressed and that could be addressed, or provide a liaison into those dialogues.

As Wolfgang had highlighted, there’s opportunities to just identify we need to have a link, not have silos, but break down the silos. From a technical community standpoint, we need to continue to be engaged. It might be mundane. It might not be that interesting about what the technical community does sometimes, but unintended consequences of other dialogues on that technology and on the ability to keep a seamless Internet can sometimes be quite interesting and challenging, and I’m happy to share stories over a coffee break on that one. We need stronger coordination among the different institutions, and implementation needs to also be able to show where progress has been made. If I could highlight one example, from the early days of the IGEA, we had the opportunity with URID and with UNESCO and others to start the conversations around multilingualism that would have been unheard of 20 years ago.

Had those conversations, built out the partnerships. We now have an MOU with UNESCO. We have one with URID from an ICANN standpoint, and just recently released a report that goes out to the entire world on the implementation of internationalized domain names and universal acceptance. That language was captured not only in the WSIS documents, but also ITU documents about a multilingual Internet. So there are pragmatic things to be done, but we need to continue those. So from ICANN’s standpoint, we’re committed in supporting this. It is a multi -stakeholder model. It is an important forum, but we really need to get work done and show the progress that’s been made. So,thank you.

Thank you. Maarit picking up on inclusiveness, how can we reinforce the participation of governments, businesses, youth, and other underrepresented groups during the implementation phase? and at the same time, how can we avoid fragmentation?

Yes, thank you very much I’ll perhaps speak here with the voice of the private sector so we’re not, let’s say, a core stakeholder if you like, maybe of the WISs but of course in the multi-stakeholder fora such as the IGF, private sector and other groups play an important role and I think that for us this multi-stakeholder bottom-up model has proven its worth in the past years and for us it’s really a place to go to seek alignment on common principles for different policy issues it is a lot about understanding the different global policy discussions meeting stakeholders and together shaping perhaps some of these discussions so not so much about policy making as we’ve been saying but really about policy shaping and exchanging ideas and as Teresa also said so the milestone of the WSIS plus 20 that IGF is now becoming permanent, I think this is really good news also for stakeholders such as the private sector, because in the past, you know, every 10 years you would be disrupted by this process to see, will this forum cease to exist or will it continue?

And now I think that we can safe and sound say, OK, this is the forum where we go and discuss global policy issues and we can remain certain that it will be there every year. So there’s some level of, let’s say, certainty to invest resources into these discussions. And just some of the facilitating factors for us of the IGF over the years. So we are a regular go to the IGF. I think it’s, you know, easy access. So open consultations. broad representation of relevant stakeholders, so a nice place to go and meet people. And when we talk about the WSIS Plus 20 implementation, whether it’s a new cycle or continuation of the old, I think that these factors should also be somehow integrated into the process.

And I fully agree with colleagues who were talking about building on the existing framework rather than creating parallel work streams or institutional structures, because any duplicate structures and processes, they do create confusion for stakeholders such as us who have limited bandwidth. And they also, I’m afraid they dilute stakeholder attention. So simplicity. is key if you want to engage stakeholders. Also, the focus of discussion. So sometimes in the IGFs, we try and cover a whole lot of different topics in one event. And I think that having focused discussions, perhaps then rotating over years, et cetera, could be a more meaningful way to attract in those parties who have a specific stake in any specific topic. So I think there’s no reason why the WSIS Plus 20 implementation process cannot also somehow use this IGF experience and the IGF community, all these people that have been going and know this environment to collect and gather multistakeholder views to then benefit of the actions that will be the actual outcome.

And yeah, we look forward to certainly being part of the process. And hope that it will be simple and easy of access so that we can be part of the meaningful discussions. Thanks.

Thank you. Thibaut, concretely. Very concretely, what actions should the IGF and EuroDig be taking to sort of go from discussion into supporting implementation, policy impact, and creating or offering practical assistance where it is needed?

So, I think the purpose of the IGF is to give meaning to the concept of multi -stakeholder. So, it means that its role is about bringing the various stakeholders together in one conversation. So, now that we have a permanent IGF, I think that we need to give it tasks so that it fulfills this role. And this requires, really, an exercise of agenda setting. So, today we are at EuroDig. And I think that also there, you know, there is an opportunity to make EuroDig. more to the point in terms of issues that are important to stakeholders. And today my wish is also that we start a process, because I agree also with what was said, that there are things happening and so on.

My point is not that we need to kick -start everything, but we need to bring momentum, because it’s a unique opportunity now that we have this permanent IGF to actually clarify what we should discuss. And the best way to do it is to start also from the grassroots, from the conversations that are taking place at national level, because they are also IGF at national level, maybe bringing them to a place like EURODIG to filter out what actually are the top priorities, what are the key issues that we need to bring to the attention of the UN family and the member states and so on. And through this you can then filter really and bring the key issues.

to the IGF to organize workshops and discussions. that are just not, you know, made up in the last moment, but that are the result of really, you know, digesting elements at the local, national, regional level. So I think that this is really what we can do is to bring really a whole architecture where the IGF is at the heart, but where actually its role and function is echoing what really the multistakeholder process is saying. And what we have proposed very concretely as a result, you know, from the EU’s perspective, is to have also in the IGF what we called, you know, policy labs, you know, multistakeholder policy lab, where we really get serious about given issues and where we, you know, come to terms to what is at stake here.

You know, what are some recommendations so that we crystallize really from the various steps important messages that then the IGF will bring. And we will be able to bring to the rest of the member states and the UN family in a way that is not just an issue, but really an informed analysis in terms of what is at stake in the digital world. Two examples. The role of AI in revenue generation for websites. This is really critical these days. Are we able to make sure that through AI you don’t actually undermine the very revenue process that websites are generating? Today there is this development where there is a question mark. Second element is also the role of agentic AI in terms of the next generation of the web.

If machines are talking to machines, how do we organize? At first, this is standardized properly and it’s not ring -fencing information flows. Secondly, how do we make sure that we keep understanding what is happening? I think these are just two issues on the top of my mind. Just to show that this is the kind of system we need to put in place with maybe also a revamped Eurodig, more powerful, more as a federation of issues around Europe, and an IGF that is really… I think this is a really fulfilling… role in terms of being at the top of the agenda, but also making concrete proposals for the UN family.

Thank you. Alena, same question to you, actually. What concrete actions for the IGF and for Eurodig?

Thank you. Actually, you already said almost what I wanted to say, so I fully agree that that’s very important to engage properly in IGF, so to engage all stakeholders group. And Wolfgang reminded us that the definition of multi -stakeholderism was created 20 years ago, and it’s still valid today. And being a part of the technical community for us, as RIPENCC, we always work this in our region, and we know how difficult it is to engage everyone in these discussions. It can be originally, it can be because these regions are remote, because there is lack of funding. And we found a way. And I think that the best way to engage, also to bring that discussion, those voices to the top, is to engage locally first.

And this is where, like, national… and regional IGFs can play a role because people know each other. People know most likely, like if you are in a certain bubble, you won’t know people from other stakeholder groups. But locally, you might know. You might even, if you’re more on the Internet governance side, you might know someone on the network operator side. And first bringing those people into local IGFs initiatives and then collecting the issues locally, like what is important in that region, in that community, and then trying to accumulate and bring it to the regional IGFs and further to the global IGF. So that could be the way how we will really know what’s really happening on the ground and not only staying in high -level talks.

So as RIPEN -CC, we are trying to do that by providing technical expertise and engaging. Technical people on the ground. linking network operators, the scientists, the researchers who can provide data and also who can bring it further to the Internet governance discussion. So these links are important, and only then we will truly remain multi -stakeholder. And we also work a lot, giving an example, with EURODIG as institutional partner. We are happy to continue doing that, and we are happy to continue talking to people here in the room. If you are from national IGFs, come and talk to us, and we can see how we can support you also, because we go to more regional and global IGFs than some other communities can afford to do.

So working with other stakeholders that have access to those for us is also one of the practical ways how we can make IGF relevant for everyone. Even if people cannot participate personally, they can still participate. Through other organizations such as RIPENCC, for example.

Thank you Alena, I’m sure quite a few participants are going to pick up on your invitation to connect Sophia, over to you for interventions on this particular theme

Yes, but first of all maybe a small block of advertisement because there’s also going to be a workshop on WSIS Plus 20 later at 4 .30 in the Lord Jenkins room where also actually NRIs are going to be able to discuss really how you translate outcomes out of national IGFs into for example EURODIG so regional initiatives, so be there at 4 .30, it would be very nice to go more in depth on that We have actually the longest list of participants here who would like to intervene which I think says a lot about the active EURODIG community that actually really wants to get to action So the first person that will be online is Axel Masolo from the Geneva AI Governance Institute You have the floor for two minutes Not here, okay, then we’ll move on to Ania Bagherova from YouthDig Are you in the room with us?

Oh you here then you have the floor no okay then we’ll move on to Andrea Mihailovic who’s on site too are you in the room no oh yes you are okay then you have the floor two minutes

I didn’t ask the question because sorry can you just introduce me a little bit what you expect

you signed up to contribute to the implementation of WSPLUS20 to say a few things about that

no it must be a mistake

okay sorry you confused me a little bit now I’m very sorry then we’ll move on to the next person but thank you then we have Andrea Mihailovic

Hello, I’m Aniya from Newstate. So one of the main challenges after the WSIS review is ensuring the growing number of digital governance initiatives does not lead to fragmentation. Today, we have several important global frameworks, including WSIS, the Global Digital Compact, and the Pact for the Future, all addressing digital cooperation from different perspectives. The priority now must be coherence and coordination between these processes. WSIS already provides an established multi -stakeholder foundation. The Global Digital Compact can build on this by bringing renewed political momentum to emerging challenges like AI governance, digital inclusion, and platform accountability. To ensure these processes reinforce each other, rather than compete, regional and national ideas has a vital role to play. Firms like Euridic help translate global principles into local action, bringing community -level perspectives back into international discussions.

At the same time, implementation should become more measurable and action -oriented. Stakeholders must work towards shared goals, clear benchmarks, and stronger cooperation between governments, civil society, academia, youth, and the tech community. Finally, multiple stakeholders’ participation must lead to visible impact. People need to see that discussion within IGFs and their regional forums genuinely shape policy development and implementation within broader UN digital processes. Thank you.

yes thank you so much so what I want to talk about a bit is communication and actually kind of the outreach because these yeah government formats are really much centered around conferences about having the same people all the time in the room but I think it’s so important to also go beyond that to pick up the discussions that we have here and actually in europe i think the most critical point is to keep the democratic elected decision makers in the loop so especially when it comes to parliamentarians on a national on a local on a regional level it is so critical to actually bring these discussions to them and involve them because this is the only way to kind of like have a reinforcement of the dialogues we have at EURODIG that the igf has and i think um yeah there’s a lot of work still to do on this front.

thank you very much vincent next person is umia whose kid are you in the room yes okay i have the floor for two

thank you so much uh the future is being written fast and we are being taught to understand it my name is samaya huskich and i’m a part of youth this year As a student, I often feel like young people are growing up between two different realities. In one reality, we hear conversations about artificial intelligence, digital transformation and the future of society. In the other, many schools and institutions are still struggling to reflect the world young people already live in. We are expected to adapt constantly, to understand technologies and evolve faster every year, to make decisions in a digital environment that many adults themselves are still trying to understand. And yet, young people are still too often treated as guests in conversations about the future that will affect us the most.

And that is exactly why EuroDig is so important. For almost 20 years, this space has been proving that young people do not need to wait to become part of change. Year after year, young voices here have challenged institutions brought urgency into conversation. that were standing still and reminded people that digital policy is not only about technology, but about human lives, education, safety, and opportunity. Spaces like this do not simply give young people visibility, they give young people influence. Thank you so much.

Thank you so much for your powerful statements, Sumeja. The next person is Mouyousou Revoula Adiemi, who is from the United Nations Volunteers and who’s joining us online. Online? Not in the room with us? Okay. Then the last person is Jeremy Jeffay. Are you online? No. Okay. And then this is the list, but maybe we have someone in the audience. Okay, then over there, you have the floor for two minutes.

Yes, it’s on. Thank you. Apologies for my voice. It’s not so good the past two weeks. My name is Wout de Natris I’m a coordinator of the IGF Dynamic Coalition on Internet Standards. I’m a member of the IGF Dynamic Coalition on the Internet Standards and I’m the director of the IGF Dynamic Coalition on the Internet Standards and I’m the director of the IGF Dynamic Coalition on the Internet Standards and I’m the director of the IGF Dynamic Coalition on the Internet Standards and I’m the director of the IGF Dynamic Coalition on the Internet Standards and I’m the director of the IGF Dynamic Coalition on the Internet Standards What I want to point out that I’ve been missing in the past one hour is that the IGF is an almost permanently active organization because these dynamic coalitions work way year round.

We have 23 at this moment at the last count, of which I know 11 are planning to have a report in Nairobi. So how are we going to make sure on the one hand that these reports get the credibility that they probably deserve so that they land at the desks of the people and organizations we’re talking about here? But on the other hand, sorry, as I said, it’s not too good. But on the other hand, perhaps there are questions you would like to ask these dynamic coalitions to take into account when they do their research. So how do we organize? How do we organize that on the one hand? And on the other hand, how do we organize that they become a part of the IGF and perhaps later EURODIG and other programs so that.

we start to have a trickle -down effect and not just a digital paper on an obscure page of an obscure website that maybe nobody ever looks at. So I think that’s the challenge, and I think that’s something that Chris Buckridge was saying before as well, but this is even more practical. How are we going to organize ourselves to have that trickle -down effect?

Thank you very much for your contribution, also pointing out the international work of the IGF with the policy networks, the dynamic coalitions, that’s very important. Also, I think a lot of NRIs are doing a lot of intersessional work, so that’s a very good point. Joao? Someone online?

Yeah, hello. I’m Dennis from Kiev City Council, Ukraine. Three points. On the machine -to -machine interaction, probably we might need to further advance GDPR, which was great years ago, now we need some updates with the GDPR, and we’re trying to catch up with legal interventions. On a second part, for the participation of government or other sectors, potentially find a way to make sure that the DPI and other digital advancements which happen on the national level or EU level could be further put to operation on the local level. So essentially residents are more active users of that. It will be a real great help. Essentially, some gaps we see now are caused both by the technological history or the legacy history or experience as well as more than probably for a process of where they’ve been built.

So if we could, apart from those, respect it as . today, we could intervene to reach to those people which are either impacted by those gaps or that those which are not represented in the current data, dashboards or other reports. They will probably provide some valuable inputs as well to consider for the future planning. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much for your contribution. We have one other person over there. You have the floor for two minutes. Please introduce yourself.

Thank you so much. Yes. My name is Nils Berglund I work for the European University Institute. I want to pick up on a few points but just highlight some language in the actual WSIS outcome document which talks about targets, indicators and metrics to facilitate monitoring and measurement and also specifically the request for a systematic review of existing indicators and methodologies ahead of the CSTD session in April. Until the next year. So in the context of everything we’re talking about, I think that this creates kind of a really concrete opportunity over the coming year to ask what a better monitoring and infrastructure implementation accountability framework actually looks like. And as we’ve heard, you know, civil society researchers and the technical community, not least the NRIs and the IGF ecosystem already hold a lot of databases, knowledge about how countries, you know, are or are not living up to some of these commitments in the GDC and WSIS.

But then in other areas like human rights and responsible AI, we might not yet actually have the right data, right? So or the indicators that we are using right now in the WSIS implementation and monitoring framework are actually not really measuring what really matters. So we’ve been working on some of these questions at the EUI, and I would really just encourage all the institutions in the room and the wider multistakeholder community to reflect on that, especially in the context of this. WSIS Forum in Geneva. Where? I know this is going to be on the docket because ideally we don’t want this just to become a reporting exercise, but this kind of a shared implementation and accountability function in the future.

Thank you very much for your contribution. And I think then we can maybe wrap it up and come to the messages for us.

Thank you indeed. We have two reporters who’ve been following very closely the discussion of this of this particular session, and they have been tasked with summarizing the key messages of the session, bearing in mind that these messages will be merged with the messages that will come out of the workshop. Matt Sophia was. Mentioning that is taking place at 430 this afternoon. But with that in mind, I’d like to invite Mark Carville, who is our reporter here in the room to share the key messages that he’s taken away from this discussion.

Thank you. Thank you, Franz. And good morning, everybody. And thank you very much to all the speakers. contributors online and in the room here for such a rich session and it’s been quite a challenge I have to say speaking personally as one of the reporters to condense from the dialogue and all the presentations and points that have been made so valuably this morning into messages but with my colleague Islam Khan who’s from the UK National IGF following remotely we’ve endeavoured to prepare some draft messages which we hope will be consensus based and supported by the room here and they’re on the screen now so you can see them I’ll read through them to assist with your absorption of the points we’ve made and see if you I hope would agree that we’ve captured many of the relevant points that have been made in this text.

So I’ll go ahead and proceed to read through them. So the first message, and we’ve obviously used the guiding questions as the sort of template for developing these messages and then incorporating so much of the points that have been made in the session. Anyway, so kicking off, the first one, Conuridic supports practical actions to achieve complementarity between multi -stakehold processes such as the IGF and the national and regional IGFs and UN initiatives such as the GDC, the Global Digital Compact, and thereby avoid duplication in the implementation of WSIS Plus 20 outcomes. Furthermore, building on existing mechanisms within the WSIS structure for coordination, monitoring, and reporting is recommended as more resource efficient for all stakeholders. rather than investing in new processes and parallel structures.

So moving on to the second message, tangible steps to ensure effectiveness include, so we’ve got a kind of list coming here, emphasizing specific topics of concern to focus on, such as human rights, connectivity and the sustainable development goals, cross -reporting across appropriate UN and WSIS meetings, encouraging multi -stakeholder policy labs and partnerships for monitoring, collaboration and participation in multilateral fora, such as the IT plenary potentiary that we’ve heard about today, and increasing capacity building for governmental stakeholders in order to direct their attention to the role of the government in the development of the future. So these are the right areas to avoid confusion. Moving on to the third message. EURODIG believes that operationalizing implementation of WSIS Plus 20 should be data -driven, leveraging existing databases held by institutions, universities, and other organizations, and should be evidence -based, supported by measurable outcomes aligned with national and mutual needs, and prioritizing operational capacity.

A comprehensive global roadmap building on the existing WSIS action lines and mapping actions to specific entities would serve to ensure effective vision, coordination amongst relevant entities, clarity of purpose, and accountability for actions to address priorities. Okay, so if we move on. Let’s move on up to message four. UD considers it important to resolve confusion about AI governance through promoting cooperation between internal governance and AI processes and specifically proposes the appointment of liaisons between the IGF MAG, the Multi -Stakeholder Advisory Group, and the Independent International Scientific Panel on AI established by WSIS Plus 20. The final message UD welcomes the UN decision to accord permanent status for the IGF and recommends concrete actions now, maybe delete need actually, to be prioritised to strengthen the IGF with greater inclusivity, including young people more precision and clarity both in identifying global, regional and national priorities and in task settings.

and more effective dissemination regionally of its concrete outputs, including those from its intersectoral activities, notably the policy networks and dynamic coalitions, that inform policy decision -making processes at all levels. Okay, there’s a lot there. They’re very long messages. I hope they do, I hope, include most of the valuable points that have been made today by all the speakers. And we offer them to the meeting here as consensus -based, and we’ll go through a process of final tweaking based on any reactions following in the next few days. And with the workshop outcomes as well. Yeah, and later today, of course, the workshop specifically on NRIs, as was mentioned earlier. Thank you. Back to you, Florence.

Thank you very much, Mark. Do we consider we have a broad consensus on those messages? No immediate strong opposition? Very good. So they’ll be merged, as Mark explained, reminded you that with the outcomes of the workshop as well this afternoon. So if you attend the workshop, there’s also going to be, of course, a bit of room for discussion on that. This is now a wrap for this particular session. I’d like to thank our panelists for their very valuable contributions and very broad range of views. So thanks a lot for joining us this morning. Thank you, Sophia, for the co-moderation. We’re now breaking for coffee until 11. So enjoy your coffee break and thank you to our speakers.

Thank you. Okay.

Thank you.